**** Elections thread *****

[wufwugy]

Sanders would fail econ 101 and 102. Trump and Clinton could eek by with some cramming. But Sanders, he has such formidable ignorance that having to learn intro economics would put him into rebellious fits.

[wufwugy]

Reading this article, came across a pretty great explanation for why Trump is popular.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/art...ap_128089.html

He’s a visceral response to a feminized culture. Talk to a selection of Trump admirers, and you’ll hear the same line over and over again: “He has balls.” (Or, as one of the less-blunt responders put it, “testicular fortitude.”) This is not a coincidence, nor a meaningless turn of phrase.

Trump is, in a sense, walking testosterone. He does not care that your women’s studies class says gender is a social construct. He is fearless, and as such, he is the perfect foil for America’s growing victimhood obsession. Show Trump a trigger warning and he’ll give that trigger warning a painful wedgie.

[JKDS]

Watchin the debate,

Trump is absolutely destroying these people. They all look like cowards next to him, getting walked all over.

[wufwugy]

got home in time to watch first half of debate but have to bed now.

fiorina fucking kiiiiiiiiiiiiilling it.

[JKDS]

We must been watching different debates. She was nervous, non committal, and her plan for Russia is to restart the cold war

[JKDS]

Like, is trump fit to be president.... "that's for the voters to decide"...wow. man up and answer the question. The only reason you arnt is because you don't want to take on trump...you're scared of him

[wufwugy]

fiorina's performance will likely get her to at least third in the polls. i wouldnt be surprised to see a second or first showing. the iran comment was strong, response to trump about her face much stronger, and planned parenthood a bombshell

on the substance of starting a new cold war with russia, that wouldn't happen and putin would run and hide if the US did what she suggests. for 60 years, the US has gradually increased its hegemonic powers, up to the point where russia was hardly even a threat anymore. it was only after the obama administration altered course from the 60 years previous of administrations that the previously well subdued adversaries have started looking like players again.

[boost]

fiorina's performance will likely get her to at least third in the polls. i wouldnt be surprised to see a second or first showing. the iran comment was strong, response to trump about her face much stronger, and planned parenthood a bombshell

on the substance of starting a new cold war with russia, that wouldn't happen and putin would run and hide if the US did what she suggests. for 60 years, the US has gradually increased its hegemonic powers, up to the point where russia was hardly even a threat anymore. it was only after the obama administration altered course from the 60 years previous of administrations that the previously well subdued adversaries have started looking like players again.

For 25 of those 60 years the cold war has been over. We won, yet we kept kicking Russia while they were down for 25 years. Remember when Germany lost a world war and the victors kicked them while they were down? Were Roosevelt, Chamberlin and de Gaulle to blame for the resultant war?

[wufwugy]

For 25 of those 60 years the cold war has been over. We won, yet we kept kicking Russia while they were down for 25 years. Remember when Germany lost a world war and the victors kicked them while they were down? Were Roosevelt, Chamberlin and de Gaulle to blame for the resultant war?

Those men were WW2 leaders. Well I don't think Chamberlain was, he was the one who appeased the rise of Hitler in the beginning. You're probably thinking of Churchill.

After that, Germany embraced the West. If you're referring to WW1 and how treatment of Germany by the West resulted in WW2, well, there is truth to it. But it isn't similar to how the West treats Russia. The Treaty of Versailles crushed Germany because it put the country into vast unpayable debt. Russia isn't in this situation. Its crap economy is its own doing.

Russia is chief antagonist to the West, even since the USSR collapse. Russia has just been less antagonistic because, well, it simply can't be as antagonistic as it would like. The USSR was shrouded in mystery and oppression. Internally, it wasn't working well at all, but that was how the country was able to keep such high military spending. But once Glasnost and Perestroika happened, the rest of the world peeked behind the curtain just a little and all (most) confidence in the communist state vanished.

The West hasn't mistreated Russia and isn't enclosing in on its territory. What's going on is that Russia is the epitome of a paranoid state, whose strongmen not only believe the paranoia, but maintain their legitimacy because the people embrace it. Because of this, Russia deeply cares about conquest. It needs territories and warm deep water seaports. The puppet state territories serve the purpose of deterring invasion from others, and the warm deep water seaports would serve the purpose of maintaining and furthering its conquest of puppet territories.

I'm probably starting to meander now. So I'll just end by saying Russia's foreign policy has always been and still is extremely aggressive. The state rationalizes that it does so for self-defense purposes, but the truth is it is the one that keeps pushing into sovereign Democratic-ish territories. Many people say the US does the same, but that's not true. The US's aggression is also about self-defense and defense of allies, but the difference comes in that the US's actions are against rogues and bad actors. You can say the US has a philosophically conservative approach to its self-defense actions while Russia has a liberal one, which means the US looks at who is causing problems then takes them out; whereas Russia assumes it is the victim to everybody and takes them out to deter others. These two different view points are deeply rooted in US and Russian history. US is silver spooned and has never been under existential threat. Russia was like North Korea, it got invaded over and over and over for centuries, and it finally said enough is enough.

[wufwugy]

i dont think the problem of the bush administration on foreign policy was philosophical, but incompetence. they had an agenda and wanted to push it through despite the facts, even though that agenda may have been "right". contrasted to the obama administration, i think it's incredibly competent. these guys are brilliant and fantastic at getting things done. but what they're bad at is having an agenda that's actually positive for the world and its people. obama's foreign policy disaster has nothing to do with competence, while bush's had everything to do with competence. reagan and h.w. bush were both very gop-agenda and very competent on foreign policy, and the results were fantastic.

[Robb]

reagan and h.w. bush were both very gop-agenda and very competent on foreign policy, and the results were fantastic.

What about Bill Clinton's?

[JKDS]

I dont remember what she said about Iran, but her response to trump re her face was wussy. "America heard what you said". Bleh. She sounds like a victim instead of a leader. Her planned parenthood thing was based on a video that was made up too, and only the most die hard of pro-lifers think that.

She did make herself known though, and I can certainly see her getting better polling because of this. I just think she pretty much wussed out over every 1on1, and was only marginally strong on some issues.

Also, to speak completely out of my ass, all I know is the last time we arms raced Russia it didnt end for decades. Trump's answer was non-specific and general, but its more believable that Trump could talk Putin down than it is that her plan succeeds. Putin is a guy who isnt gonna be scared of a woman leader either, so regardless of how much force she uses, hes gonna laugh and tell her to make him a sandwich.

[wufwugy]

I dont remember what she said about Iran, but her response to trump re her face was wussy. "America heard what you said". Bleh. She sounds like a victim instead of a leader. Her planned parenthood thing was based on a video that was made up too, and only the most die hard of pro-lifers think that.

She did make herself known though, and I can certainly see her getting better polling because of this. I just think she pretty much wussed out over every 1on1, and was only marginally strong on some issues.

Also, to speak completely out of my ass, all I know is the last time we arms raced Russia it didnt end for decades. Trump's answer was non-specific and general, but its more believable that Trump could talk Putin down than it is that her plan succeeds. Putin is a guy who isnt gonna be scared of a woman leader either, so regardless of how much force she uses, hes gonna laugh and tell her to make him a sandwich.

The planned parenthood thing was misleading, but it will go over incredibly well with the base and even the general electorate. It is true that the videos arent great and that body parts get sold and that some late abortions are highly questionable as to whether or not they're killing human people. Fiorina's comments were very smart given how targeted they are, how much the base will love it, and that not too many people are going to care about the nitpicking of the exact when and how of Fiorina's statement on the videos.

About the Cold War, Putin would not pursue another. He's occupying a vacuum created by the Obama administration, but he would quickly not be so interested in occupying the room if the US reemerged. Russia is highly interested in its hegemony of destitution, but in the face of US pressure it has been impotent to push it. Iran really, truly wants the bomb. All their actions point towards how much the country cares about its hegemony in the Middle East and that they're willing to massacre for it. The Obama administration is out to lunch in that they think the deal will stop Iran. On the contrary it will just further enforce Iran's ability to antagonize.

[JKDS]

My biggest problem with every candidate but trump is this.

Take the House of Cards scene where President Underwood has the Russian leader over for dinner and a party. The entire time, the Russian is just walking all over Underwood, and hes just sitting there and taking it. Each candidate except trump would do exactly the same thing, and we know this becuase we got to see how each of them would react to such a thing live, on stage.

We saw repeatedly how Trump completely dominated the discussions, how each candidate would back off and let the man speak even when it wasnt trump's turn. Even Bush backed down and cowered to him. Though whenever someone brought up a strong point against Trump, it seemed like he had a good answer waiting and planned out.

Look at Carson, the whole night he seemed rather passive. He was still looking down and fumling with his hands too. This guy is smart, but it doesnt seem like he moved forward in terms of speaking. Trump on the other hand massively improved. His accordion arms werent there anymore, he was joking around in a way that was actually likeable (even low-fiving bush).

Imho, the only other person to do so well was Christie.

[a500lbgorilla]

My biggest problem with every candidate but trump is this.

Take the House of Cards scene where President Underwood has the Russian leader over for dinner and a party. The entire time, the Russian is just walking all over Underwood, and hes just sitting there and taking it. Each candidate except trump would do exactly the same thing, and we know this becuase we got to see how each of them would react to such a thing live, on stage.

Spoke to a Frenchman who described Holland as 'jelly'. You touch him and he flubs over. Apparently France is well ready for a replacement.

[JKDS]

Also, Im well aware that news people are saying Fiorina did well and such. These are all just my loudmouthed opinions

[wufwugy]

On Trump, each candidate is pursuing a specific strategy. Nobody yet knows how to deal with him, but what they have seen is that those who have attacked him have sunk to near zero in the polls. Look at Perry and Paul.

The Bush campaign is taking on Trump because it has to. It wants to create a stark contrast and show the establishment voters that Bush is the guy to win, so that when it gets deeper in primary season, Bush vs Trump proceeds, where the Bush people are confident they will win hands down.

The Kasich campaign is focused on Kasich. They are not interested in attacking anybody at this stage. They feel that their priority is to get Kasich's message out.

Walker was doing this, but Trump (actually mainly Carson) took a shiny dump on his poll numbers. As the biggest loser in all this, the Walker campaign wants him to come out swinging. Otherwise, frankly, he's just another name on the roster.

The Fiorina campaign is not attacking Trump. They're marginalizing him. To some it may seem that she was weak in not "taking on" Trump, but really the campaign strategists came to the decision that mano a mano will yield only negative results and instead the way to beat Trump is to not even acknowledge that he matters.

Christie definitely looked better than previously. He could get a decent boost out of this. His strategy is kinda the same as always, just to, um, do it.

Carson's meekness is not baffling to just you, but to about everybody. It works for him, but if anybody else were to employ it, they would lose so much support they'd be joining Perry.


The idea of Trump as a great negotiator is an enticing one, for sure. A lot of people seem to be thinking it's of the utmost importance. I think it's of near zero importance. The president isn't a negotiator, he's a manager. Judgement calls are what matters. Trump's persona is powerful with a chunk of the electorate, but I think it's a minority. Granted, Trump has made this point many times when he says that he will get all the best people around him to get the job done. Yeah, that's what presidents are supposed to do. Not negotiate, but manage the negotiators.

[wufwugy]

I feel sorry for Walker (and Perry). Probably my two favorite guys in it all. Walker's a fantastic candidate with a nose for what policies to pursue and how to get them done. But he's in the wrong race at the wrong time. A guy who otherwise looks like Batman to the GOP electorate is at risk of losing all his support.

And Perry. Jeez. Who cares about the oops? Oh, I know who, Republican voters who hate being thought of as dummies. They'll do whatever they can to avoid the optics of another doofus like W Bush. They want a smart, well-spoken pedigree that the media doesn't look down its nose at. They want their own Obama. If this was pre-W Bush, Perry could have survived the oops just fine IMO. And in that case he would look fantastic to the GOP base.

[boost]

When the cold war ended, there wasn't a treaty, but there was an unwritten understanding that Nato wouldn't encroach any further on Russia's sphere of influence. I believe Clinton's exact words were "Not an inch east" or something to that effect. Yet Nato has been expanding East essentially since the moment those words left Clinton's lips.

I mean, the idea that Russia is inherently antagonistic to the west becomes a self fulfilling prophecy. If their opposition to the west is inherent, then we should kick them while they're down-- but anyone who is kicked while they are down is obviously going to antagonize the kicker as soon as they get to a knee, much less their feet. But, none of that matters, because either you're right and Russia can't help but antagonize the west, due to the gears and cogs ticking away under the cover of geopolitics, or that belief in the west has made it a reality-- and in neither case can we blame Obama.

[wufwugy]

I think we can blame Obama for Putin's newfound geopolitical strength. Even though the Democratic base says otherwise, the Obama administration really has been following their philosophy of pulling back from the world stage and responding to aggression by retreating. The Democratic base very much wants to not be involved, and Obama has been giving them that. This has resulted in a vacuum in some arenas, one of which is on Russia's margins. As a side note, I remember reading an article by an ex-Russian political insider who says that Putin and his regime to this day don't understand that the US President is not a strongman the way that the President of Russia is.

As for the NATO thing, I'd have to learn more about it. However, I do see how Russia would view NATO expansion as encroachment, but that still doesn't make it encroachment.

[boost]

Read Nato's charter. It is encroachment. We've been drawing a line in the sand, daring Russia to cross it, then drawing one one step closer when they fail to. This time they advanced towards us before the line could be drawn.

[CoccoBill]

^^I think you misunderstand Putin and Russia, but so do most people. Showing weakness for him would be suicide, perhaps not only politically.

Warm recommendation: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/putins-way/

[wufwugy]

^^I think you misunderstand Putin and Russia, but so do most people. Showing weakness for him would be suicide, perhaps not only politically.

Warm recommendation: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/putins-way/

When he first invaded Crimea, I was on this forum saying how his reason for doing so was that if he didn't show military might, he'd be done for.

It being the case that Putin requires the appearance of strength, however, does not mean that he would have no option but to keep pushing against a show of strength from the US. It would be just as great of political suicide for him to take on the US with aggressive action. All of Putin's military behavior depends on the notion of defense of the motherland and somewhat by extension, cultural Russians. The type of US behavior people like Rubio support doesn't threaten the motherland or cultural Russians.

Strength from the US would force the Putin regime back into its "economic bargain" with the Russian people. That's what really keeps him in power, not his military strength. Putin would rather show military might than engage in economic reforms. We're doing the Russian people a disfavor by letting Putin shore up support by engaging its paranoia. If he did not have that avenue, he would be forced to return the economy back to its average growth rate or watch as the country rejects his authoritarianism, like they were about to do without the "economic bargain" in the first place.

Read Nato's charter. It is encroachment. We've been drawing a line in the sand, daring Russia to cross it, then drawing one one step closer when they fail to. This time they advanced towards us before the line could be drawn.

I was referring to how what NATO calls it doesn't exactly make it so. Russia's claim over many of its puppet states is not legitimate, even though it is relevant to some agreements. For example, the Baltics joining NATO isn't encroachment into sovereign Russian territory even though it is into the loosely defined and not-fully-legitimized idea of "sphere of influence". However, Russia does consider pressure on its sphere of influence as pressure on the motherland, so from its perspective, is is being encroached upon. But its "right" to its sphere or influence came only by conquest. NATO isn't conquering anything, it is simply inviting the free choice of sovereign states.

What's going on here is Russia has an untenable geopolitical vision. It doesn't want NATO any closer, but it doesn't have the right to that. What it has is a handshake agreement or something. Of course, it also broke a whole bunch of handshakes, as well as contractual/legal agreements when it invaded Ukraine. Russia's the one doing the bullying. The GOP's perspective is that the bully isn't being stood up to.

[wufwugy]

Yeah trump has completely and utterly doomed his nomination possibilities with the Muslim and terrorist training camp thing. The immigration stuff caught some ears because some of it is true, but conspiracy theories will get him nowhere close to the office.

[wufwugy]

jesus fiorina is incredible at this shit

“The reason I’m running for president is because I don’t want to see hope fading from anyone’s eyes. And while there’s nothing as devastating as drug addiction, it is also true that I see too many people now in this nation that lack hope,” she said. She also knows “the look people get when they achieve their God-given potential. For me, that look is fuel.”

if she had experience as a governor, she would easily win the nomination. nobody touches her on messaging, even rubio, the purported rock star of the party in that regard.

[wufwugy]

voice of reason. trump related

http://marketmonetarist.com/2015/09/...ls-to-wake-up/

[Renton]

I am scared shitless of Corbyn. The guy is a straight up communist and he's like the most popular politician in the U.K. (a relatively conservative country by Euro standards) right now.

[wufwugy]

like reagan and h w bush, clinton's doctrine was mostly (maybe entirely) an extension of truman.

[Robb]

like reagan and h w bush, clinton's doctrine was mostly (maybe entirely) an extension of truman.

I find it interesting that Hillary, as Secretary of State, lent so little Clinton-era style to the foreign policy of the Obama administration.

[wufwugy]

I think the story is that Hillary Clinton was the greater hawk in Obama's inner circle. But Obama gets his orders from Democratic voters, more or less, and that base has dramatically shifted towards pacifism since the Iraq War. She has serious competence issues too though.

[spoonitnow]

Fiorina is only relevant because Trump said her name, and now everybody is celebrating because she's polling at half of what Trump is. Then again, considering no one was even in the double-digits before that, maybe that's worth celebrating?

Know what you call second place? First loser.

You can't stump the Trump.

[wufwugy]

dont fool youseself, trump will definitely definitely definitely not be the nominee. his polling strength is heavily a media phenomenon and he has horrible fundamentals.

[Renton]

so will jeb make a comeback?

[wufwugy]

so will jeb make a comeback?

Hard to say. If I'm guessing, I'm going to say that Jeb! will not be the nominee. The main heuristic I'm using is the fact that the field is very strong and there are other candidates who have broader appeal as well as establishment appeal. The 2012 narrative was about the base looking for a not-Romney yet finding no viable candidates. However, this time there are a few viable not-Jeb!s. I don't see Kasich getting the nod, but Rubio could.

If I'm guessing who the nominee will be, I'm saying Rubio. The reasoning is that Jeb! and Kasich will probably only get so far before lots of money is spent. But then after lots of money is spent, they won't move that much. This will greatly surprise the establishment (money is quite misunderstood in politics), and that will provoke them to abandon Jeb!, who they're backing now partly because they think all of his money will be the game changer. So, when it comes time for the establishment to coalesce, they will probably see Rubio as the only viable option since he will be a contender on the merits (his support doubled after this debate, for example).

Trump is not a fine wine. He doesn't have staying power, as shown in the latest debate. He gets by on some buzzwords and buzz feelings and the fact that he has enormous name recognition as well as opposition votes are split. HU he loses to >50% of the field, maybe even >80%.

[wufwugy]

Also Rubio would lose to a big fat 0% of the field HU. If he's running against an establishment candidate, he would get nearly all of the anti-establishment vote as well as a not insignificant chunk of the establishment vote. If he's running against an anti-establishment candidate, he would get nearly all of the establishment vote as well as a not insignificant chunk of the anti-establishment vote. There aren't any other crossover candidates who can do this (other than Walker and Perry, funny enough).

Even if Fiorina kills it in every way, the establishment will not back her due to the ads that can be run against her that Boxer crushed her with (Romney-like layoffs and outsourcing during her time as CEO). I don't see Carson ever getting a good deal of establishment support unless he's the only person who can take out Trump.

[wufwugy]

Well looks like Walker's out. I'm sorta happy because I kinda want him to stay in Wisconsin because I think he can do an disproportionate amount of good there. Plus the national electorate doesn't like Midwesterners. For whatever reason.

People will probably say that Trump was the downfall of Walker. Not so. Sure, Trump probably took some votes from Walker, but it was by plurality Carson and then some by Fiorina and Rubio. Paul is the guy who took the biggest hit from Trump. The only voters married to a candidate are a chunk of Trump supporters, so the ups and downs for other candidates is the dating game. Walker looked like the best candidate when Carson and Fiorina looked bleh and Rubio wasn't debate tested. But now everybody has jumped.

[wufwugy]

A rule in politics that almost nobody talks about (so yeah I guess I'm making up a rule) is that the strongest candidate always wins.

Go back fifty years for all generals and primaries and you probably won't find a winner that wasn't the strongest candidate. The horse race ignores this, emphasizing details instead of the big picture, but the big picture is always right. I don't think it's going to be any different this cycle. Rubio will probably be the strongest candidate in the primary, and whoever the GOP puts up will be a stronger candidate than the second tier players the Dems have.

[wufwugy]

I keep going back to wanting Carson to win. Social justice is the greatest scourge of the modern world. It oppresses both culture and the economy to substantial degrees. Lest we forget, social justice is the heart of communism (and fascism), and it's the antithesis of freedom and prosperity.

[wufwugy]

The Muslim Carson thing is a prime example for why somebody like him needs to be president. His explanation for what he said is completely true. But the moment people heard something negative about the most protected group identity on the fucking planet, they go bananas.

Social justice obsession is the one thing that really scares me. It's so enticing, so capable of permeating. It's a virus capable of controlling the entire species.

[wufwugy]

I am unconvinced a Rubio presidency would be a positive thing. He seems a little naive on policy. He knows data inside and out but his understanding of some subjects (like economics) seems to need some work.

[wufwugy]

Jeb! appears to be fantastic on policy. That can explain why he's the establishment favorite. He knows what he's doing.

It's a shame his brother was a doofus and the Federal Reserve is full of losers whose ineptness creates recessions and awful NGDP growth. Otherwise the Bush name would probably be revered.

[JKDS]

Trumps fundamentals are sound, his problems are with his past. He just can't do anything with all his comments about women and hispanics, even tho he's the best public speaker up there.

Rubio has a great shot, and he's building name rec. via his emotional speeches.

Carson tho, he's really gotta step up his public speaking if he's gonna have a shot. He's appeared passive and timid too often, and it's not gonna work out for him.

[wufwugy]

trump's fundamentals are weak for a few reasons. his polls reflect a higher than usual rate of unlikely primary voters. he has the highest name recognition by far. he is getting an unusually high amount of media attention while his competitors are getting unusually low amounts. his lack of a base shows that the data are probably overestimating him.

carson's demeanor so far has not been a problem. it is possible to say it has been a strength. his answers are what will make or break him. the issue with his demeanor is probably that there is less room for error. if you act like trump, you can say really dumb things and nobody cares, but if you act like carson, you look like a doofus when you say dumb things.

[wufwugy]

carson's style is very good in person and in press conferences. he would be his own best press secretary, something like that. he just doesn't give "the stump speech". im not sure that's a problem though. his problem comes from the establishment not liking his lack of public service experience. if he was a governor he'd be at the top of the race.

however, he does have a path to victory in the primary. it involves getting most of the evangelical vote and pieces of every other vote. this is actually pretty doable. in the general he would win easily by getting all the base vote, increased turnout in evangelicals, and a significant portion of minorities (mainly blacks). he could actually get increased turnout in several categories other than just christians.

[wufwugy]

:37 needs to be my ringtone

[wufwugy]

Carson putting bitches on blast. Dude's within 1 of Trump in North Carolina and whooping Hildawg by 11.

[wufwugy]

cant josh, i lol'd

[kingnat]

Following shifts in favorability or polling numbers at this point is a complete waste of time for determining who is going to get the nomination. I'd still put most of my money on Jeb for reasons mentioned earlier.

[JKDS]

I got Rubio. I dont think Carson, Trump, Fiorina, or Jeb will pull it off.

[wufwugy]

I like how Nate Silver describes it.

I sometimes feel with Rubio like he’s the contestant on a reality show where it’s totally obvious that he’s eventually going to win, but the network needs to create dramatic subplots for 17 weeks before it happens.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/m...-dropping-out/

[wufwugy]

carson can pull it off though. rubio will play well in the coastal metropolises, but carson really can get surprising numbers in the south and west, as well as the midwest.

[JKDS]

For me, its gonna come down to whether Carson can be a better public speaker. Hes smart, sure. But hes got some serious issues with not knowing what to do with his hands, and not sounding confident all the time. To some extent you can play that off as "as a scientist, the more you know...the harder it is to be confident in anything" but still. Needs some aggressive fire.

Rubio is the only one so far that seems able to weave an emotional story and pull on some heart-strings, and if no one else can do that then hes gonna win fo sho.

[kingnat]

For me, its gonna come down to whether Carson can be a better public speaker. Hes smart, sure. But hes got some serious issues with not knowing what to do with his hands, and not sounding confident all the time. To some extent you can play that off as "as a scientist, the more you know...the harder it is to be confident in anything" but still. Needs some aggressive fire.

Rubio is the only one so far that seems able to weave an emotional story and pull on some heart-strings, and if no one else can do that then hes gonna win fo sho.

I don't want to sound like a hair-splitting ass, but Carson, as far as I know, isn't a scientist. He's a medical doctor and a neurosurgeon. I'm not familiar with everything that a neurosurgeon might know but he's not a neuroscientist. Medicine is a practice and only recently have there been more attempts at being more scientifically minded, i.e., collecting data on patient outcomes and determining best practices (large and small) that lead to the best outcomes. I agree with the posit that the more you know the harder it is to sure of something, and Carson does seem to hedge somewhat appropriately at times, and maybe it is due to this fact.

I find it hard to swallow that someone can't understand that the both the bible (somewhat vaguely and open to interpretation) and the Constitution (fairly directly) say that religion should stay out of government. And yet he still thinks a Muslim couldn't be president and that the Bible is more important than the Constitution.

[wufwugy]

I don't want to sound like a hair-splitting ass, but Carson, as far as I know, isn't a scientist. He's a medical doctor and a neurosurgeon. I'm not familiar with everything that a neurosurgeon might know but he's not a neuroscientist. Medicine is a practice and only recently have there been more attempts at being more scientifically minded, i.e., collecting data on patient outcomes and determining best practices (large and small) that lead to the best outcomes. I agree with the posit that the more you know the harder it is to sure of something, and Carson does seem to hedge somewhat appropriately at times, and maybe it is due to this fact.

Yeah practitioners =/ scientists. It's not hairsplitting. It's an important distinction that many don't make.

Carson has hedged some (like with vaccines), but I think some of what looks like hedges aren't. He talks about the issues in ways that look to me like a depth of understanding on them greater than most. It almost makes him look like he doesn't know what he's talking about. The Muslim thing is an example.

I find it hard to swallow that someone can't understand that the both the bible (somewhat vaguely and open to interpretation) and the Constitution (fairly directly) say that religion should stay out of government. And yet he still thinks a Muslim couldn't be president and that the Bible is more important than the Constitution.

The media got this very wrong, and it's unironically a great example of the very problem that Carson most discusses, how the culture of how we discuss issues is creating more problems than solutions. In this situation, Carson said something, and instead of the media actually assessing what he said and trying to understand what he said, they immediately claimed victim status of one group and oppressor in another.

I'm having a little trouble finding the exact transcripts, but I remember the content well enough. Here's what Carson said: that he doesn't think a Muslim should be president, or that he wouldn't vote for one. After the undeserved shitstorm hit, he said that he was referring to how there are specific philosophical differences between the Constitution and Sharia Islam in such a way that a Muslim president would be likely to believe that his religious beliefs come before his duty to the Constitution. Then he said that he would be open to voting for a Muslim who rejected the theocratic aspects of Islam and he WOULDN'T support a Christian who does support theocracy.

Everything he said was accurate and reasonable. The media and the social justice culture are the problem.


It should also be noted that there is nothing unconstitutional about saying you have preference against a certain religion for office. The Constitution prohibits the government establishing standards, not voters having individual convictions.

[boost]

Given that you're paraphrasing and assuming the clarification was genuine, I think the initial remark was very poorly worded and far too abrupt to convey his feelings on the issue. He's a candidate for president, communication is very important.

That being said, his clarification is spot on, imo. I think it's great that he gave the counter example of a theocratic Christian. Good on him.

edit: Even so, the assumption that any Muslim, and especially one who would stand as a candidate for POTUS, would support a Sharia based theocracy is a pretty big gaff in of of itself. I mean, I understand it to an extent-- this was a wide spread worry about Kennedy having a primary allegiance to the pope-- but we're in the information age, it's too easy to do a little research and realize that moderate Muslims who don't believe in a Sharia based theocracy are a significant minority in Islam.

edit2: But this was ffffffffffffffffar less egregious than Trump assuring that mouth breather that, "We'll be looking into that" when asked about Obama being Muslim or born in Kenya or whatever.

[wufwugy]

but we're in the information age, it's too easy to do a little research and realize that moderate Muslims who don't believe in a Sharia based theocracy are a significant minority in Islam.

about this specifically, i cant find it but i recall seeing some stats on poll responses from these so-called moderate muslims across the globe. the results were shocking. it seems moderate islam still has lots of philosophical agreements with extreme islam. granted i dont have a source and even then you can say anything you want with stats (especially polls)

[boost]

about this specifically, i cant find it but i recall seeing some stats on poll responses from these so-called moderate muslims across the globe. the results were shocking. it seems moderate islam still has lots of philosophical agreements with extreme islam. granted i dont have a source and even then you can say anything you want with stats (especially polls)

Yeah, no, I'm definitely sort of playing devils advocate here, because I feel pretty strongly that, of the world religions, Islam has some pretty heinous flaws that we should rightfully be worried about. But I also think that it is terribly erroneous to allow so much wiggle room for Christians, Jews, Buddhist, etc, but insist that Muslims must be fundamentalist or renounce their faith.

As for tact and whatnot-- I hear what you're saying, but being an absolutist in any way is almost always going to be less than optimal. So, for example, the idea that being frank is virtuous, especially if the sentiment is backed by fact-- this may be argued on some sort of theoretical level, but in reality the candidate adhering to this "virtue" isn't going to ever see the oval office. Thought of a different way, the target is honesty, and at one extreme we have the liars and at the other extreme we have the inconsiderate. Absolutism never hits the mark (har har.)

[wufwugy]

yeah it's understandable that the tactless way of saying that would get him in trouble. honestly i would be interested in him further expounding. i mean, i dont know enough about islam to say all of what it teaches, but there are those who say that one of its very widely accepted tenets is the idea that islamic law should dominate all other law. they say this is true of even the moderate factions. there are other tenets like it being holy (or whatever) to lie to infidels in order to get them to give you what you want, meaning a muslim would be morally justified in the eyes of allah if he were to pretend like he was a "good upstanding" american in pursuit of the presidency.

i dont know if these things are true because i havent personally investigated, but ive seen them listed by a variety of sources and there isn't exactly any denouncing of it.

another thing about tact (and how it relates to sjw): language is hard. by nature, language isn't flawless and just using it is all that's needed to say things that can be in poor taste when scrutinized, even when you take every precaution. we all say tons of stuff that sounds awful or would be the end of our political careers. i agree with carson that the pc culture is the problem, and i think the fact that we care so much about tact is a symptom of our unconditional acceptance of the pc culture.

[wufwugy]

[wufwugy]

carson gonna win it all. youse heard it here first

[JKDS]

Bernie bernie bernie

[wufwugy]

the closest thing bernie gets to accuracy is a somewhat reasonable diagnosis of the problem. for example, when he says the biggest problem for blacks is education, he's not wrong. that's not unique because, well, many all over the place agree with that. where he diverges from correctness is in his prescription. more subsidization and centralization isn't the solution, it's what has caused the problem in the first place.

check out thomas sowell. he discusses quite a lot (citing tons of data) about how blacks did far better under the "old" education system, the one that has been subverted by all the leftist policies that people like sanders supported over the last several decades.

the most recent thing about bernie to make the news (since it's boring to continually debunk him on the same stuff over and over) is how he doesn't even know that denmark isn't a socialist country. his anti-capitalist example is far more capitalist than the US. funny that he could say something so outlandish and inaccurate in a national debate and not get fact-checked. oh wait, that makes total sense since the modus operandi of the media is to obfuscate facts and champion populism.

[JKDS]

Name someone running whos better on the gay marriage issue.

[JKDS]

Lets be real. Your ideal candidate would use all his political umfph to try and dismantle government and go completely stateless. Failing that, theyd at least push for smaller government. You see Sanders promoting cutting the amount of power corporations have over congress, and you lose your mind.

Heres the thing though. Im a reasonable person, and I started out as a man of science. When new data comes out, I take it and use it to reevaluate my old viewpoints. However, we've had this economics discussion on whats gonna make America better for over a year...and you've been unpersuassive. We always hit a crossroads on a few essential assumptions regarding that view point, and we cant agree on them. So as far as bernie being bad because of his economic views, I cant agree.

Meanwhile, carson's so dumb he thought homesexuality was akin to pedophilia, the kind of bigoted horseshit we saw being spouted when buttsex was still illegal.

[wufwugy]

Lets be real. Your ideal candidate would use all his political umfph to try and dismantle government and go completely stateless. Failing that, theyd at least push for smaller government. You see Sanders promoting cutting the amount of power corporations have over congress, and you lose your mind.

I do? I would love it if Sanders supported this, but he doesn't. Rhetorically he does, but his policies just make it worse. This isn't even pro-or-anti-government philosophy stuff. Sanders' policy proposals to deal with corporate influence in Congress would just create even more power for special interests to get what they want.

Heres the thing though. Im a reasonable person, and I started out as a man of science. When new data comes out, I take it and use it to reevaluate my old viewpoints. However, we've had this economics discussion on whats gonna make America better for over a year...and you've been unpersuassive. We always hit a crossroads on a few essential assumptions regarding that view point, and we cant agree on them. So as far as bernie being bad because of his economic views, I cant agree.

That's my fault because we rarely discuss economics specifically and instead discuss social philosophy. Be aware that it isn't me saying Bernie is out to lunch, it's the economics profession at large. I've tried to translate some of the reasons why, but the discussions always end up in other places. So I recommend you stop listening to me and instead listen to economists. I can give you a list of where to start if you would like. Probably the best bang for your buck is to go to the learnliberty channel on youtube. It has like 40 econ phd's giving swift lessons.

Meanwhile, carson's so dumb he thought homesexuality was akin to pedophilia, the kind of bigoted horseshit we saw being spouted when buttsex was still illegal.

No he didn't. Here's what he said:

"Marriage is between a man and a woman. It's a well-established, fundamental pillar of society and no group, be they gays, be they NAMBLA, be they people who believe in bestiality -- it doesn't matter what they are, they don't get to change the definition."

This is not equating homosexuality and pedophilia. It is instead saying that all things that are not man-woman marriage are alike in that they're not man-woman marriage. That said, the optics of this are awful and his rhetoric sucks. Not to mention his actual position sucked. There's irony in that the desire that some gays have for being married is an embrace of mainstream protestant nuclear family cultural ethic. American Christianity needs a leader who explains why Christian mores and norms would be more furthered by embracing gay marriage and child adoption.

Name someone running whos better on the gay marriage issue.

SCOTUS. We won. I feel like voting for a pro-gay marriage person will do nothing to further gay rights. At this point.

Also I do not get the impression that Carson is a militant fundamentalist.

[CoccoBill]

Since when is Denmark not "socialist"?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordic_model

[wufwugy]

Since when is Denmark not "socialist"?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordic_model

Even the link doesn't. Social democracy is not exactly socialism. Similar roots, but in practice they're a bit different.

http://www.themoneyillusion.com/?p=30886

You can find lots of posts by this economist (as well as others) discussing the issue and related ones. Denmark (and Sweden and basically all of Scandinavia more or less) is in a lot of ways a capitalist utopia relative to the US. Overall the region is more capitalist than the US. Its tax policies and regulations are substantially more market oriented and capitalist friendly than here.

[CoccoBill]

Even the link doesn't. Social democracy is not exactly socialism. Similar roots, but in practice they're a bit different.

http://www.themoneyillusion.com/?p=30886

You can find lots of posts by this economist (as well as others) discussing the issue and related ones. Denmark (and Sweden and basically all of Scandinavia more or less) is in a lot of ways a capitalist utopia relative to the US. Overall the region is more capitalist than the US. Its tax policies and regulations are substantially more market oriented and capitalist friendly than here.

So only countries that have a political party called "socialist party" or otherwise identify as "socialist" are socialist? I'd politely disagree. Social democracy is a form of government with a mixture of socialist and capitalist social and economic policies. If we go by that blogger's definition, Soviet Union wasn't socialist and USA was for a long time.

[wufwugy]

So only countries that have a political party called "socialist party" or otherwise identify as "socialist" are socialist? I'd politely disagree. Social democracy is a form of government with a mixture of socialist and capitalist social and economic policies. If we go by that blogger's definition, Soviet Union wasn't socialist and USA was for a long time.

im not terribly concerned with the terminology. however, his opinion is more reflective of those who study this stuff for a living.

[JKDS]

Thats my fault for not investigating the pedophilia thing. I was reading one of those "where do they stand" type sites and it said that, then I googled and found tons of links with the headline. I done fucked up.

But hes still incredibly anti-gay, and that matters for quite a few reasons. For one, he'll be responsible for nominating people to the Supreme Court, a decision that could rewrite the entire victory. That victory was also not possible without Obama's massive support in the case. For another, he has a world of influence over how gays are treated in the military, a front that is far from over.

As far as learning economics, I'd love to. But the problem is that it seems that its either too complex, or too assumption riddled, to be whittled down into a simple idea. When I learn about sciency things, I often listen to Neil Degrasse Tyson bc hes awesome. Most sciencey types say he isnt that big a deal smarts wise...but I disagree. As far as any issue hes ever talked about, hes been able to whittle it down to something I can walk away with and understand. That takes a lot of skill, and its something I have to do to juries soon. But I dont see anyone effectively doing that with economics. It always seems like they take an assumption, carry it to an extreme, and pray its gonna work out. I dont have that faith.

Fact is, I dont see how bernie's policies are going to hurt us, and no one has been able to explain it in a way that made actual sense.

[wufwugy]

Thats my fault for not investigating the pedophilia thing. I was reading one of those "where do they stand" type sites and it said that, then I googled and found tons of links with the headline. I done fucked up.

But hes still incredibly anti-gay, and that matters for quite a few reasons. For one, he'll be responsible for nominating people to the Supreme Court, a decision that could rewrite the entire victory. That victory was also not possible without Obama's massive support in the case. For another, he has a world of influence over how gays are treated in the military, a front that is far from over.

As far as learning economics, I'd love to. But the problem is that it seems that its either too complex, or too assumption riddled, to be whittled down into a simple idea. When I learn about sciency things, I often listen to Neil Degrasse Tyson bc hes awesome. Most sciencey types say he isnt that big a deal smarts wise...but I disagree. As far as any issue hes ever talked about, hes been able to whittle it down to something I can walk away with and understand. That takes a lot of skill, and its something I have to do to juries soon. But I dont see anyone effectively doing that with economics. It always seems like they take an assumption, carry it to an extreme, and pray its gonna work out. I dont have that faith.

Fact is, I dont see how bernie's policies are going to hurt us, and no one has been able to explain it in a way that made actual sense.

the learnliberty videos are great for this. plus milton friedman was the master. what have you read/watched?

my econ 101 textbook was written by paul krugman, one of the most lefty* economists alive. bernie couldnt answer 2% of the questions in it. also, it's not assumption based at all. it's pretty much all supply and demand math (find the area under the curve!). the supply and demand model is as well established as evolution and gravity. for example the stock market couldnt even function if the law of supply and law of demand were non-insignificantly different than the models.

*it should be noted that a lefty economist is still very to the right of the populace. economists agree on about 98% of things, and they're all pretty "right-wing" on the stuff. it's the 2% of things they argue about, like whether or not interest rates are a meaningful measure of monetary policy. granted, this disagreement does not reflect academic economics that much. but it does reflect economists as a whole since so many are stuck in the weeds of punditry and political ideology.

look at it this way: it took until the 00's for the federal reserve to finally admit that it caused the great depression with its bad monetary policy. all signs point at the fed for causing the 08 financial crisis and subsequent great recession (not housing recession, those were different things) just like they did with regards to the great depression, but it will still be several decades before economists finally admit it at large.

[wufwugy]

Thats my fault for not investigating the pedophilia thing. I was reading one of those "where do they stand" type sites and it said that, then I googled and found tons of links with the headline. I done fucked up.

But hes still incredibly anti-gay, and that matters for quite a few reasons. For one, he'll be responsible for nominating people to the Supreme Court, a decision that could rewrite the entire victory. That victory was also not possible without Obama's massive support in the case. For another, he has a world of influence over how gays are treated in the military, a front that is far from over.

i take a different view. obama only supported gay rights after the people did. he wasn't a mover. scotus also needs to maintain its legitimacy to such a degree that you see a "right wing" court support obamacare, enforce gay marriage, and not overturn roe v wade.

about carson specifically, i dont think he would be likely to nominate hardline evangelical judges. from the outside view, carson looks pretty much the same as huckabee, but they are quite different. i would probably never support huckabee. he's not an american conservative, he's an evangelical and a populist. he believes in such anti-conservative things like legislating morality and expanding welfare spending. carson would likely be much more about judicial restraint and protection of liberty. im not 100% on this. if he makes it far i guess we'll find out more.

[wufwugy]

im pretty sure im going to have to disagree with carson's stance on drugs. i mean, i get part of where he's coming from, but i think it is strategically wrong. now if instead he were to support things like legalizing responsible medicinal use of drugs while cracking down on illegal trafficking, i would get behind him.

[boost]

You're trying to fit a round peg in a square hole. The guy is not a good candidate, he won't be elected, and your desire to make him a hero is pretty strange.

[wufwugy]

i dont have a desire to make anybody a good candidate. understanding comes first.